Leaderboard

Sheep are not so unlike antelope that you need special evolution for it. Fruits, including cucurbits, nuts and roots were always part of the hominid diet. Grains, too, though the strains have been modified over time to suit human needs: they have been accelerated in their evolution by us. Cooking food, including flat-breads, has been in our repertoire for quite a long time; it was the norm well before agriculture was. The problem isn't an evolutionary one; it's commercial one. The more processing an ingredient undergoes, the more of its nutrients are lost - and usually the more refined sugar and chemical preservatives are added.

My understanding is that quite a bit of bread intolerance is due to modern bread-making processes, which do not allow time for yeast to break down the proteins that cause trouble. Traditional bread such as French baguette tradition, or made by artisanal bakers, is a lot easier on the stomach, as well as tasting far better. Bread quality is one of the things that has become immeasurably worse over the course of my lifetime.

Amen. It's hard to describe the stark improvement I found eliminating wheat from my diet. And most "multigrain" breads are still at least fifty percent white flour, which is crap. I like whole rolled oats, which are one of those foods which is exactly what it says it is. And no brain-fogging, nap-inducing gluten. I would not be surprised if future research discovered that half the population has NCGI, non-coeliac gluten intolerance.

"If he had only stuck to math he would not have gotten into trouble with the Pope. There's a lesson in there somewhere." Also, if he had only stuck to strength of materials he would not have gotten into trouble with the Pope. Galileo's Beam Experiment (lindahall.org)

You don't make sense. More examples: (My emphasis.) This is like saying that Einstein, rather than being a physicist, was German. Thus, whether something is a field, or a high-dimensional state --of what, BTW?-- belong in different categories. And more: (Again, my emphasis.) Blend QFT with ST?! You seem to forget that when people say "string theory" that's just short for "supersymmetric quantum field theory of strings". So string theory is but one kind of quantum field theory. Again using analogy, what you're saying here is very much like saying "we should blend calculus and mathematics". It's obvious to most everybody here that you're not making any sense. You've found a narrative that pleases you in terms of these characters "entropy", "mass", and so on. That's not science.

C'est la vie, C'est la guerre, C'est la pomme de terre! "what makes something absurd"

Made me think of Kiki Rockwell, with her witch/folk stuff. And weirdly, though the vibe is somewhat different, Wet Leg. Here's a rather whimsical track from these Isle of Wightians... Great voices, great sense of humor. See also All Day Long on the Chaise Longue, or Ur Mum.

I would not like to advertise/recommend a device that I have not checked myself. Here in a relatively large city there is a lot of dust, light pollution etc. We are lucky to see 1% of what a person in the countryside a few dozen kilometers away sees. Ten+ years ago I bought a digital camera, and after the fact I noticed that it lacked a timelapse function (the device with the built-in function was twice as expensive as my device). This is an extremely useful thing for events that take a lot of time, such as astronomy. So I wrote a special app that sent 'take picture' commands to the device via a USB cable from my computer. I took nice timelapse transitions of the sun and moon in the sky during a trip across the sky over several hours. For real astronomy, you should have a device that tracks the rotation of the Earth during time-lapse sessions. Photons from a distant object are needed to get a good quality image, but the Earth is rotating, so if the camera/telescope is not rotating properly, the image will be blurred. There are special applications to 'de-blur' images taken by home astronomers.

Fear itself, along with disgust, are inbuilt. Fear of those different from us, i.e., homosexuals, is likely instinctive. Other phobias may be instinctive as well, whereas others can be due to experience.

Yes it's very strange. Yes it is allowed. In fact it's the defining property of infinite sets. We can't do that with a finite set! One way to define an infinite set is to say that it's a set that can be placed into bijection with a proper subset of itself. Only infinite sets have that property. And yes it is strange! This was noticed by Galileo in 1638. He observed that we can correspond the natural numbers with the perfect squares: 0 <-> 0, 1 <->1, 2 <-> 4, 3 <-> 9, etc. So the whole numbers must at the same time be more numerous and equally numerous with the squares. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo's_paradox If he had only stuck to math he would not have gotten into trouble with the Pope. There's a lesson in there somewhere.

Here is what's going on. One day Alice eats a cheeseburger. The next day her vegetarian friend Bob says to Alice, "Alice, you are a meat eater." Alice indignantly replies: "But no, TODAY I have not eaten any meat. I only eat meat sometimes." And Bob explains that a meat eater is anyone who SOMETIMES eats meat. A vegetarian is someone who NEVER eats meat. If someone is not a vegetarian, they are a meat eater. Since Alice sometimes eats meat, she is clearly not a vegetarian. She is by definition a meat eater, by virtue of the fact that she SOMETIMES eats meat. Ok that's a bit of a shaggy dog story and if it's unclear I'll try to come up with a better example. But here is the relevant definition for our mathematical purposes: * Definition: Two sets are said to have the same cardinality if THERE EXISTS a function between them that is a bijection. The fact that there happen to be functions between the sets that are NOT bijections doesn't matter. All it takes is the existence of a single bijection to satisfy the definition. By this definition, we see that [math]\mathbb N[/math] and [math]\mathbb Z[/math] have the same cardinality. Because THERE EXISTS some function between them that is a bijection: namely, the function that corresponds them as follows: 0 <-> 0 1 <-> -1 2 <-> 1 3 <-> -2 4 <-> 2 5 <-> -3 6 <-> 3 and so forth. It is certainly the case that there are SOME functions between [math]\mathbb N[/math] and [math]\mathbb Z[/math] that are NOT bijections. But that doesn't matter. To have the same cardinality, there only needs to be a single bijection between the two sets; just as to be a meat eater, you only have to have one cheeseburger. Another example is a guy who is convicted of robbing a bank. For the rest of his life he'll be labeled a bank robber, even if he hasn't robbed a bank in years. Doing it once is enough to earn the label. Likewise, a single bijection between two sets is all it takes to declare the sets to have the same cardinality.

I suspect distaste for homosexuality is inborn in many of us. Given that we have a drive to be attracted to the opposite sex, we find the idea of sex with someone of the same sex a big turn-off. Consequently we may find the idea of a sexual approach from somebody of our own sex rather disturbing. If that is homophobia, then I am a homophobe. It seems to me that the blanket term "homophobia" is thrown around too easily. One needs to draw a distinction between personal sexual taste and the attempts by some to condemn different (minority) tastes in others. It is the latter that society should refrain from.

One of my newest videos. At first I wanted to make educational videos but that did not work out. So I resorted to my cousin Dominic's mockery of the ai voice. I somehow got it to do that. Anyways, I like posting these videos and I was wondering if their is pcycology other than hooks that will grab their attention. Like what can I do to keep them entertained and not swipe away. Anything? I need my channel to grow so I can make a quick buck.

Sorry, Too lazy to find it.

I have a YouTube channel, but my lawyer advised me not to tell what it is. I am not advertising but I do need Ideas. My cousin domninic said something funny. Do you wanna see how to eat a bunch of chicken bones in one try? Just go OUEGH OUEGH OUEGH. How do I come up with stuff like that. That was comedy gold! What makes someone laugh. Say what makes something absurd. Just tell me Anyone?